writer, performer and activist Julia Serano's blog! most posts will focus on gender & sexuality; trans, queer & feminist politics; music & performance; and other stuff that interests or concerns me. find out more about my various creative endeavors at juliaserano.com

In 2010, two review articles appeared in the peer-review literature: My article The Case Against Autogynephilia was published in The International Journal of Transgenderism, and Charles Moser's article Blanchard's Autogynephilia Theory: A Critique appeared in the Journal of Homosexuality. Both of our papers presented numerous lines of evidence
that disprove the main underpinnings of autogynephilia theory, namely, the
assertions that trans female/feminine-spectrum people can be readily divided
into two clear-cut categories based upon sexual orientation and the presence or
absence of “autogynephilia,” and that “autogynephilia” is the primary
underlying cause of gender dysphoria and desire to transition in trans women
who experience it. (Note: subsequent analyses by Talia Bettcher and Jaimie Veale have further demonstrated that autogynephilia theory is incorrect.)

Where our papers differ is that, while Moser continues to use
the term “autogynephilia” to refer to sexual fantasies and patterns of arousal in
which the “thought or image of oneself as a woman” plays a contributing role, I
instead argue that we should no longer use this term for the following reasons:

There is a several-decade-long history in which
“autogynephilia” has been described in the scientific/psychiatric literature as
both a sexual orientation and a cause of gender dysphoria and transsexuality.
Since neither appears to be the case, it would be misleading to continue using
the term in this manner.

There is a similarly long history of
“autogynephilia” being described as a “male”-specific phenomenon and a
paraphilia—these notions are interrelated, as (according to psychiatric dogma)
paraphilias are extremely rare or nonexistent in women.[1] However, recent
studies have shown that many cisgender women (up to 93%) have experienced “erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman.” Therefore, we should
no longer use a term that is so closely associated with paraphilias and “erotic
anomalies” (as Blanchard calls them) to describe what appears to be a relatively
common (and non-pathological) form of sexual thought or fantasy experienced by many
female/feminine-identified people.

“Autogynephilia” (as defined in the
scientific/psychiatric literature) conceptualizes trans women as
“sexually-deviant men,” and thus is unnecessarily stigmatizing and invalidating
of trans identities. For this very reason, the concept of “autogynephilia” has
been increasingly appropriated by lay people who forward anti-transgender
ideologies and political agendas.[2]

For these reasons, in my review I argued that we should replace the misleading and stigmatizing label “autogynephilia” with the more comprehensive (and less pathologizing) term Female/Feminine Embodiment Fantasies (FEFs).

Here is the rationale for this nomenclature: I refer to them
as “fantasies,” because that is what they are: a type of sexual/erotic thought
or fantasy. It is widely acknowledged (in both sexology and society) that
sexual fantasies vary greatly in the population, and if two people just so happen
to have a similar fantasy, it does not necessarily mean that they share the
same underlying “condition” or are a similar “type” of person.[3] (In contrast,
Blanchard argued that there are two distinct types or categories of trans female/feminine
people—“autogynephilic” and “androphilic”—distinguished by the presence or
absence of the paraphilic condition “autogynephilia.”)

The word “embodiment”
references the well-accepted notion in philosophy and cognitive studies that
our thoughts, perceptions, and desires do not happen in a vacuum—they occur
within, and are shaped by, our bodies. As I pointed out in my book Whipping Girl(pp. 268-269), most of our sexual fantasies involve (at least) two
bodies: our own body, and the body of the person we are attracted to (for a
more rigorous exploration of this, see Talia Bettcher’s excellent article When Selves Have Sex). In fantasies centered on sexual attraction, most of the attention
or emphasis may be placed on our imagined partner’s body and behaviors, but our
own bodies and behaviors are nevertheless often present (e.g., we may imagine
them doing something to our body, or our body doing something to theirs). In
“embodiment fantasies,” more (or perhaps in some cases, all) of the attention
and emphasis is instead shifted toward our own (real or imagined) bodies and
behaviors.

Finally, the “female/feminine” in FEFs refers to the fact that aspects
of our own (real or imagined) female body and/or feminine gender expression
play a central erotic role in the fantasy (although other erotic components,
such as our imagined partner, may also exist in the fantasy).

For similar reasons, I favor the term Male/Masculine
Embodiment Fantasies (MEFs) over the psychopathologizing term
“autoandrophilia.”[4] While MEFs do exist, they seem to be less common than
FEFs. In Chapters 14 and 17 of my book Whipping Girl, and in my essay Psychology, Sexualization and Trans-Invalidations, I have laid out a compelling case that the
relative prevalence of FEFs is foundationally rooted in, and typically viewed
through the lens of, our cultural tendency to sexualize and objectify femaleness
and femininity. This explains why many people (of diverse sexual orientations
and anatomies) who are (or wish to be) female and/or feminine report having experienced
such fantasies or erotic thoughts either occasionally or often. It also
explains why male- and/or masculine-identified people—whose real or imagined
bodies no doubt play some role in their sexual fantasies (e.g., they might
imagine other people doing things to
their penis and/or themselves doing things with
their penis)—do not typically view their bodies as central to their fantasies, as we are
all culturally conditioned to view male/masculine bodies as the subjects (rather than the objects) of
sexual desire.

In the aforementioned Whipping
Girl chapters and in The Case Against Autogynephilia, I further argued
that at least two other additional factors are likely to contribute to the
observed trends in the prevalence and demographics of FEFs and MEFs. First,
while neither of these phenomena is transgender-specific, they do seem to be
more common (or commonly reported) in pre- and non-transition
transgender-spectrum people. It makes perfect sense that someone who has not
yet attained their imagined or identified sexed body, or who are unable to
safely share their desired gender expression or presentation with the world, would
focus more attention on those elements in their fantasies than people who can
take those aspects of themselves for granted. Indeed, this would help to explain
the well-documented dramatic decrease in intensity and frequency of FEFs
reported by many trans women once they socially and physically transition.[5]

Second, one might expect that the intensity or frequency
FEFs would be more pronounced in individuals who are sexually attracted to
femaleness/femininity more generally (e.g., in their partners); an analogous
correlation might be expected between MEFs and attraction to maleness/masculinity
in others. This would explain the increased levels of FEFs reported in lesbian
and bisexual trans women compared to heterosexual trans women (as reported in many
previous studies), and numerous lines of anecdotal evidence indicating that
MEFs are not uncommon in gay trans men, and in female-assigned people who
identify as “girlfags.”[6] Similarly, numerous cis femme-identified queer
women have told me (in informal conversations) that they regularly experience
FEFs. While more formal investigations would be necessary to confirm this
anecdotal evidence, the notion that attraction to femaleness/femininity and
experiencing FEFs (or attraction to maleness/masculinity and experiencing MEFs)
may be correlated to some degree seems reasonable and helps explain previously reported
patterns of FEFs in trans female/feminine-spectrum people.

So that is a brief introduction to my multifactorial model
to explain the phenomenon formerly known as “autogynephilia” (note: other potential factors that may facilitate the development of, or amplify, FEFs can be found in Whipping Girl, pp. 253-276 and 283-313). This model allows
for a variety of outcomes, as each of the previously described potential factors
simply increases the likelihood of (but does not strictly determine) the
presence of FEFs or MEFs within any given individual. Like all sexual
fantasies, FEFs and MEFs are not a permanent condition—they may appear,
disappear, reappear, intensify, de-intensify, evolve, or vary for unknown or inexplicable
reasons. And unlike Blanchard’s theory, the existence of FEFs and MEFs does not
contradict or deny the known diversity in transgender identities, trajectories,
and sexualities.

[btw, If you appreciate this essay and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page.]

Notes:

1. American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV-TR, 568. While the accuracy of this claim may be debatable, the crucial point here is that this notion (that paraphilias are male-specific) is what allowed Blanchard to portray “autogynephilia” as a paraphilia in the first place: In his 1989 paper in which he first introduces the concept (Blanchard, “The Classification and Labeling of Nonhomosexual Gender Dysphorias”), Blanchard considers the presence of “autogynephilia” in many trans women, and the supposed lack of its counterpart in trans men, to be evidence that it must be a paraphilic impulse (under his presumption that trans women are “men” and trans men are “women”). In stark contrast, recent findings (e.g., Charles Moser, “Autogynephilia in Women”) indicate that what Blanchard calls “autogynephilia” is a more general sexual phenomenon that may be associated with female/feminine-identified people (both cis and trans), rather than being a trans-specific paraphilia.

2. For example, Dale O’Leary, “Legalizing deception: Why “gender identity” should not be added to antidiscrimination legislation,” Catholic Exchange (June 25, 2009) [currently online at http://www.donotlink.com/fakj] and Sheila Jeffrey's recent book Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, which I discuss in the middle of this essay (which, not coincidentally, describes how a journalist who was determined to make transgender activists look bad tried to portray me as "autogynephilic").

Julia's new music!

About Me

Julia Serano is an Oakland, California-based writer, performer, speaker, and biologist. She is the author of the recent book "Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive" (Seal Press, 2013). Her first book "Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity" (Seal Press, 2007) has been used as teaching materials in gender studies, queer studies, social studies, human sexuality and psychology courses across North America.